Did anyone else see the first part of
this C4 documentary last night?
I was kind of surprised that I'd never come across this research before (being a psychology graduate and all).
I was expecting the 1% of population being sociopathic thing to be brought up before too long, but I was intrigued and a bit dubious of the concept of the 'empathetic killer heroes' that made up the other 1%.
Next week they're focussing on how the SAS or whoever manage to get their figure up from 2% to 95%. I guess it's mainly a selection thing.
Anyway, it's kind of nice that it's bloody rare to be able to look another human in the eye and kill them, but it's kind of sad that modern weapons makes it so easy to get around this.
― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 15:20 (twenty-two years ago)
Oh - OK. That thread's really about a different issue, though.
FWIW, I thought Grub Smith was a perfect choice of presenter. Far better him than a typical C4 presenter who'd look like they'd have complete scorn for the armed forces in the first place.
The last time I saw him on TV I think he was having sex with some Thai prostitutes.
― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 16:18 (twenty-two years ago)
In Art Spiegelman's
Maus the father/Holocaust survivor talks about finding himself killing a German soldier at the start of WWII -- his tone was, looking back over many years, reflective but very neutral, which I thought was an interesting take on it. No guilt but no celebration beyond a flat 'well, I had done something, I guess' take.
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 17:19 (twenty-two years ago)
I'm sure many of you have heard this little story before, but I find it kinda fitting to this thread:
"During World War I, in the winter of 1914, on the battlefields of Flanders, one of the most unusual events in all of human history took place. The Germans had been in a fierce battle with the British and French. Both sides were dug in, safe in muddy, man-made trenches six to eight feet deep that seemed to stretch forever.
All of a sudden, German troops began to put small Christmas trees, lit with candles, outside of their trenches. Then, they began to sing songs. Across the way, in the "no man's land" between them, came songs from the British and French troops. Incredibly, many of the Germans, who had worked in England before the war, were able to speak good enough English to propose a "Christmas" truce.
The British and French troops, all along the miles of trenches, accepted. In a few places, allied troops fired at the Germans as they climbed out of their trenches. But the Germans were persistent and Christmas would be celebrated even under the threat of impending death.
According to Stanley Weintraub, who wrote about this event in his book, Silent Night, "signboards arose up and down the trenches in a variety of shapes. They were usually in English, or - from the Germans - in fractured English. Rightly, the Germans assumed that the other side could not read traditional gothic lettering, and that few English understood spoken German. 'YOU NO FIGHT, WE NO FIGHT' was the most frequently employed German message. Some British units improvised 'MERRY CHRISTMAS' banners and waited for a response. More placards on both sides popped up."
A spontaneous truce resulted. Soldiers left their trenches, meeting in the middle to shake hands. The first order of business was to bury the dead who had been previously unreachable because of the conflict. Then, they exchanged gifts. Chocolate cake, cognac, postcards, newspapers, tobacco. In a few places, along the trenches, soldiers exchanged rifles for soccer balls and began to play games.
It didn't last forever. In fact, some of the generals didn't like it at all and commanded their troops to resume shooting at each other. After all, they were in a war. Soldiers eventually did resume shooting at each other. But only after, in a number of cases, a few days of wasting rounds of ammunition shooting at stars in the sky instead of soldiers in the opposing army across the field."
― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 19:11 (twenty-two years ago)
this data seems really weird to me. like only 2% of the soldiers actually fought? how did all those hundreds of thousands of people die? Bombs, mainly. Like I said - the data refers to infantry who could actually see the person they were shooting at. The programme was at pains not to make out that the 98% were useless, both because they did all the other things that armies do (provide supplies, arm things whatever) and just providing a psychological presence, which military historians argued was the major part of how battles are (have been?) traditionally won.
― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 20:33 (twenty-two years ago)